robjn

The lawsuits allege that the new power/resource management system that throttles peak processor activity prompts people to buy new phones.

Actually, the oppose is surely true, Apple introduced this new resource management system to prevent phones from suddenly shutting down. Now if someone has a phone that randomly shuts down they are surely highly likely to buy a new phone.

So if Apple wanted users to replace their phones as early as possible they would have done nothing. Phones that seemingly randomly shut down in the middle of whatever you are doing are useless.

Apple introduced a system that resurrects these phones and makes them usable. A great many people that would have got a new phone when faced with shutdowns were able to keep it for longer. A much smaller number of people would have been able to detect the slowdown and upgraded as a result, many of these people would have upgraded anyway if they faced the shutdown problem.

So the lawsuits hang on hypothetical arguments about what people would or would not have done in an alternate reality.

Never-the-less it is absurd that Apple faces lawsuits for essentially fixing phones that are “broken” due to spent resources. What Apple did was keep these devices working for longer - This is the opposite to the “planned obsolescence” accusations in France.

Fred257 said:

Reviews that go in depth show a different story. If the new MacBook Air has only one Nand chip, like the newest 13’ MacBook Pro then it will be a downgrade in performance. Looks are one thing. But, like in any relationship it’s on the inside what matters most 😂

The slower SSD on the base model won’t be noticeable in almost all real world workflows. The only way to see a difference is by repeatedly moving large files between the SSD and RAM. Few workflows do that. If someone is working with large files they are not going to buy a 256GB drive, so practically no one is going to run into this.

The supposedly slow drive is still faster than any external drive.

blitz1 said:

We’ve all read this « analysis » before.
last time when the European commission would fail at making Apply comply to antitrust laws.
Remind me, who got « crushed » (crushed, really) 

Apple have complied with the law in Europe.

In the Ireland tax case the EU changed the law after the fact by re-defining key terms then went after Ireland for breaking it during the time before they changed it. All to try to get more tax from Apple. The EU lost, then appealed.

The DMA is a new law that has just gone into effect - Apple will have to comply but some parts of the EU’s enforcement of the new law might end up being challenged in court because the law is so badly written that the EU is having to require Apple to follow “the spirit of it” not the words, which is ambiguous and can mean anything.

Apple have been found to break (not by a court but by a political body) in the case of the recent fine for not letting Spotify link out to alternative payments on the web. Only the fact is that Apple does let Spotify link out under the reader app rule. Spotify has chosen not to in order to fabricate an anti-trust claim and the EU fell for it. Apple will obviously win this one in court.

The article comments “ It removes a potential revenue stream (one these companies seem to have no intention of pursing anyway)”

I for one pay a subscription to Nintendo just to be able to play all the old games. Software piracy costs Nintendo. It’s a crime, plain and simple.
 

Wesley Hilliard said:

robjn said:

i don’t see a link in this article to where Apple made these comments. perhaps someone can point it out to me.

Apple made the comments directly to AppleInsider and other publications.

So why don’t you directly quote them? I want to see their actual words. What I see looks like a casual paraphrase. You should at least mention in the article that Apple spoke to you directly if that is your source.

Remember the time when Tile made antitrust complaints and even testified before Congress that Apple was being anti-competitive based on nothing but rumors that Apple was making a tracking device? Yes, Apple had not yet even announced their product and their was Tile testifying before Congress about how the unreleased product was unfair! When Apple did finally announce AirTag they also announced a networking system that third party trackers like Tile could use on iPhone but of course Tile refused to use it. It’s incredible that the DOJ are taking Tile’s claims forward.

Companies like Tile and Spotify have fooled governments with plainly false claims. Spotify continue to claim Apple won’t let them link out to alternative payments when they are in fact allowed to under the reader app rule, they just refuse to because they want more, they want their own payment system embedded in the app. When they say they are not allowed to link out it is plainly false.

As for game streaming services, they are allowed on iPhone. Some work through Safari. Apple’s rules were clearly designed to protect children and give parents control over the content their children have access to. Apple recently changed the rules so that one app can have multiple games so long as the age rating for the app applies to the highest age-rating of any of the games it includes.

Muons-R-Us said:

 The same is true of the totally absurd accusation that Apple is deliberately blocking Android messaging formats from iPhones -- solely to profit from forcing people buy iPhones! 

What makes the iMessage accusations absurd is that the very fact the Messages app has different color bubbles is because it is interoperable between different messaging services.

All the antitrust accusers are completely confused because they don’t realize there is a difference between the Messages app (which supports multiple messaging protocols) and iMessage which is one of those protocols. One that runs on Apple servers (at considerable expense) to provide added value for Apple’s customers.

The antitrust accusers seem to think that Apple should run iMessage for everyone in the world and allow third party apps to build businesses on top of it that pay Apple nothing. But there is already messaging interoperability between Apple’s Messages app and the rest of the world because Messages supports not just iMessage but also SMS and soon RCS.

There are other messaging services out their whose apps are closed systems that do not have interoperability, Apple’s Messages app is open.

This is great. Swift Data was a huge announcement at WWDC last year. Now beginners have some up to date tutorials that build with the latest technologies.

But these tutorials are not enough. Apple really need to update their school curriculum materials for Swift UI and SwiftData. Those teaching materials are now very old and outdated.

i don’t see a link in this article to where Apple made these comments. perhaps someone can point it out to me.

“Any colored materials that frequently come in contact with it will inevitably stain the finish —and yes, that includes denim or leather.”

It is not true that staining is “inevitable” from “any colored materials” .

Leather and denim are fabrics that take strong dyes. The laundry instructions on a pair in dark jeans may tell you to “wash separately”. In reality they might be covering themselves or it might only be a problem for the first few washes. The vast majority of jeans are 100% color fast.

Apple’s support document is just covering them against a somewhat unlikely possibility.